Page 151 - Šolsko polje, XXXI, 2020, 5-6: Teaching Feminism, ed. Valerija Vendramin
P. 151
reviews
and blisters occur on the neck which is also a beautiful thing!” (ibid., p.
40). The father lieutenant hence instead decided to ask for a dispensation,
which he obtained through a formal request and a bribe. Meta was thus
able to speak every 3 weeks for 1 day without “disengaging from the com-
mandment of blessed Anton of Kal, by which a woman in eternal wisdom
is forbidden any speech” (ibid., p. 40). The scene ends when the father
lieutenant together with the father major are drinking wine in comfort
and complaining about the “unfortunate” and Meta, who now has per-
mission to speak after 3 weeks, suddenly interrupts them. She insults them
both for being drunks and chases them away.
The story of Meta condenses all of the key elements of silencing a
woman and woman’s place in society. Tavčar, with the exact targeting of
the misogyny and silencing of women in the figure of Meta, presents the
whole dimension of this structure. On one hand, there is the silence of
a woman and the importance of her beauty and, on the other, if a wom-
an’s speech is allowed (of course only in the domestic sphere), is the wom-
an’s speaking only the uproarious outbreaks of uncontrolled talking and
Xantipe’s grumpiness, which destroys pleasant hanging out with friends
with a glass of wine?
Women’s bodies are not only twisted by the patriarchal beauty ide-
al, but also by the often emphasised authority of the deep male voice as
opposed to the female one. This is exactly, says Mary Beard (p. 39), what
Margaret Teacher did when she lowered her tone of voice with the help
of special voice training, thus giving it an authoritative tone which, ac-
cording to the counsellors, her high voice was lacking in. When listeners
hear a female voice, they still do not hear a voice that connotes authori-
ty, they have not learned how to hear authority in it and they do not hear
muthos. But it is not just voice, we can also add in a wrinkled face, which
for a man indicates mature wisdom and for a woman that her date has ex-
pired (p. 31).
Namely, if a woman’s voice is heard in public, it is because of »an-
drogyny« or because it is a voice raised in support of women’s causes,
which is also not unimportant but, as Mary Beard points out, women’s
public speech has been pushed into this framework for centuries (p. 25).
On the other hand, many aspects of the traditional set of views on
the general unsuitability of women for public speaking are still contain
a premise of awkwardness with the female voice in public. When wom-
en speak in public, they are “strident”, they “whinge” and “whine” (p. 29).
“Do those words matter?”, asks Mary Beard (p. 30), answering: “Of course
they do” (p. 30): because they remove authority, force, and even humour
from the female voice. This idiom actually effectively returns women back
149
and blisters occur on the neck which is also a beautiful thing!” (ibid., p.
40). The father lieutenant hence instead decided to ask for a dispensation,
which he obtained through a formal request and a bribe. Meta was thus
able to speak every 3 weeks for 1 day without “disengaging from the com-
mandment of blessed Anton of Kal, by which a woman in eternal wisdom
is forbidden any speech” (ibid., p. 40). The scene ends when the father
lieutenant together with the father major are drinking wine in comfort
and complaining about the “unfortunate” and Meta, who now has per-
mission to speak after 3 weeks, suddenly interrupts them. She insults them
both for being drunks and chases them away.
The story of Meta condenses all of the key elements of silencing a
woman and woman’s place in society. Tavčar, with the exact targeting of
the misogyny and silencing of women in the figure of Meta, presents the
whole dimension of this structure. On one hand, there is the silence of
a woman and the importance of her beauty and, on the other, if a wom-
an’s speech is allowed (of course only in the domestic sphere), is the wom-
an’s speaking only the uproarious outbreaks of uncontrolled talking and
Xantipe’s grumpiness, which destroys pleasant hanging out with friends
with a glass of wine?
Women’s bodies are not only twisted by the patriarchal beauty ide-
al, but also by the often emphasised authority of the deep male voice as
opposed to the female one. This is exactly, says Mary Beard (p. 39), what
Margaret Teacher did when she lowered her tone of voice with the help
of special voice training, thus giving it an authoritative tone which, ac-
cording to the counsellors, her high voice was lacking in. When listeners
hear a female voice, they still do not hear a voice that connotes authori-
ty, they have not learned how to hear authority in it and they do not hear
muthos. But it is not just voice, we can also add in a wrinkled face, which
for a man indicates mature wisdom and for a woman that her date has ex-
pired (p. 31).
Namely, if a woman’s voice is heard in public, it is because of »an-
drogyny« or because it is a voice raised in support of women’s causes,
which is also not unimportant but, as Mary Beard points out, women’s
public speech has been pushed into this framework for centuries (p. 25).
On the other hand, many aspects of the traditional set of views on
the general unsuitability of women for public speaking are still contain
a premise of awkwardness with the female voice in public. When wom-
en speak in public, they are “strident”, they “whinge” and “whine” (p. 29).
“Do those words matter?”, asks Mary Beard (p. 30), answering: “Of course
they do” (p. 30): because they remove authority, force, and even humour
from the female voice. This idiom actually effectively returns women back
149
